Lancing devices are known in the medical health-care products industry for piercing the skin to produce blood for analysis. Typically, a drop of blood for this type of analysis is obtained by making a small incision in the fingertip, creating a small wound, which generates a small blood droplet on the surface of the skin.
Early methods of lancing included piercing or slicing the skin with a needle or razor. Current methods utilize lancing devices that contain a multitude of spring, cam and mass actuators to drive the lancet. These include cantilever springs, diaphragms, coil springs, as well as gravity plumbs used to drive the lancet. The device may be held against the skin and mechanically triggered to ballistically launch the lancet. Unfortunately, the pain associated with each lancing event using known technology discourages patients from testing. In addition to vibratory stimulation of the skin as the driver impacts the end of a launcher stop, known spring based devices have the possibility of harmonically oscillating against the patient tissue, causing multiple strikes due to recoil. This recoil and multiple strikes of the lancet against the patient is one major impediment to patient compliance with a structured glucose monitoring regime.
Another impediment to patient compliance is the lack of spontaneous blood flow generated by known lancing technology. In addition to the pain as discussed above, a patient may need more than one lancing event to obtain a blood sample since spontaneous blood generation is unreliable using known lancing technology. Thus the pain is multiplied by the number of tries it takes to successfully generate spontaneous blood flow. Different skin thickness may yield different results in terms of pain perception, blood yield and success rate of obtaining blood between different users of the lancing device. Known devices poorly account for these skin thickness variations.
A still further impediment to improved compliance with glucose monitoring are the many steps and hassle associated with each lancing event. Many diabetic patients that are insulin dependent may need to self-test for blood glucose levels five to six times daily. The large number of steps required in traditional methods of glucose testing, ranging from lancing, to milking of blood, applying blood to the test strip, and getting the measurements from the test strip, discourages many diabetic patients from testing their blood glucose levels as often as recommended. Older patients and those with deteriorating motor skills encounter difficulty loading lancets into launcher devices, transferring blood onto a test strip, or inserting thin test strips into slots on glucose measurement meters. Additionally, the wound channel left on the patient by known systems may also be of a size that discourages those who are active with their hands or who are worried about healing of those wound channels from testing their glucose levels.
Additionally, known glucose meters have user interfaces that are specific to that particular meter. They contain certain features and those features are not changeable. Manufacturers decide which user interface goes with which feature set. As soon as that part is decided, the device is set. They cannot mix and match with ease. This creates a large number of products, each directed at specific target customers. This increases the cost of the meters since they are produced at low volumes, each targeted for particular, niche user group.
Additionally, the market has not accepted the Palm or other PDA devices coupled to meters since very small numbers of diabetics actually use computers to monitor their illness. Devices of such nature have low market penetration. Basing a meter on another company's technology is questionable since the pace of advancement is so fast that devices are advancing quickly and sometimes are no longer supported by the time a diabetes monitoring program or application is ready. These advances obsolete devices and systems designed to piggyback off of other devices.